Author
Topic: I used custom shapes to create content and now account is blocked. help / advice (Read 9791 times)

I Need some info about ShutterStock, can anybody help me here?Hi everyone,

I've created an account on ShutterStock few years ago. I uploaded +2000 my photography pictures there. And I used some custom shapes from internet and those shapes were free for commercial use but after some time the designer of that shapes has deleted his account and blame on all of us who were using those shapes for commercial use. So ShutterStock banned my account just because of some shapes, it's a very big loss for me..

I wanted to ask that now can I use those images on any other stock website to sell or can I create another account on ShutterStock with some different or my brother's identity to re-use them?

If I can upload those pictures on another website then which websites are best and paying better?

Please help me, Thanks in advanced

admin edit: gave this post it's own thread and a new subject name

« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 13:43 by leaf »

Logged

traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2012, 14:07 »

0

Sounds like you violated somebody's copyright and want to do it again, is that right?

Logged

velocicarpo

Sounds like you violated somebody's copyright and want to do it again, is that right?

ummmm, again one of those "I am tough and everybody is guilty" guy....don`t you ever learn? He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.

traveler1116

Sounds like you violated somebody's copyright and want to do it again, is that right?

ummmm, again one of those "I am tough and everybody is guilty" guy....don`t you ever learn? He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.

Unless the images were not actually free to use. There are lots of images out there that say free to use but they are not, anyone can steal an image and post it saying "free to use". It is the OP's responsibility to be 100% that those images are ok. I assume they were banned because of a complaint but without more info we're just guessing. BTW why would SS ban people for things that are OK according to their TOS, that doesn't make much sense.

velocicarpo

Sounds like you violated somebody's copyright and want to do it again, is that right?

ummmm, again one of those "I am tough and everybody is guilty" guy....don`t you ever learn? He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.

Unless the images were not actually free to use. There are lots of images out there that say free to use but they are not, anyone can steal an image and post it saying "free to use". It is the OP's responsibility to be 100% that those images are ok. I assume they were banned because of a complaint but without more info we're just guessing. BTW why would SS ban people for things that are OK according to their TOS, that doesn't make much sense.

He used brushes (or "shapes") created by someone else. This someone else stated officially that anybody could use the brushes for free for commercial use. Using tools like that is absolutely ok in the TOS of Shutterstock. Later, the guy who created the brushes, apparently changed his mind and tried to block the work complaining at shutterstock.This scenario is no different than e.g. using a Photoshop filter for noise reduction which you paid for and are allowed to use, and later the creator company changes the license and all you material using the filter gets blocked.

IMHO if you give away a license you cannot change your mind _retrospective_. Means, affecting material already created.And if you change I don`t think it is fair if shutterstock blocks the account. Shutterstock is not investigating before blocking. Shutterstock is investigating WHILE blocking. And no, they do not care about the contributor nor about the truth. Last week a other known contributor who did NOTHING wrong was in the same boat. As soon as any doubt occurs the contributor will be blocked and only sometimes it is even possible to communicate with them.

Please don`t get me wrong. If soembody steals, kick him. I am absolutely for that. But what we are seeing lately is that the actual licenses and laws are not taken into account. Shutterstock blocks and does not bother to look at the actual agreements of the tools which had been used to create material.

If you are a hardliner for justice, than BE IT! and stick to real agreements and laws (you have read) instead of just following macho attitude without really understanding the Situation.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 14:44 by velocicarpo »

Logged

traveler1116

He used brushes created from soemone else. This someone else stated officially that anybody could use the brushes for free for commercial use. This is absolutely ok in the TOS of Shutterstock. Later, the guy who created the brushes, changed his mind and tried to block the work complaining at shutterstock.This scenario is no different than eg using a Photoshop filter for Noise which you paid for and are allowed to use, and later the creator company changes the license and all you material using the filter gets blocked.

IMHO if you give away a license you cannot change your mind _retrospective_. Means, affecting material already created.And if you change I don`t think it is fair if shutterstock blocks the account. Shutterstock is not investigating before blocking. Shutterstock is investigating WHILE blocking. And no, they do not care about the contributor nor about the truth. Last week a other known contributor who did NOTHING wrong was in the same boat. As soon as any doubt occurs the contributor will be blocked and only sometimes it is even possible to communicate with them.

Please don`t get me wrong. If soembody steals, kick him. I am absolutely for that. But what we are seeing lately is that the actual licenses and laws are not taken into account. Shutterstock blocks and does not bother to look at the actual agreements of the tools which had been used to create material.

If you are a hardliner for justice, than BE IT! and stick to real agreements and laws (you have read) instead of just following macho attitude without really understanding the Situation.

I think you are assuming a lot here. How do you know that the "shapes" were just brushes? How do you know that the creator of the "shapes" was the one who posted them on a site saying they were free? Maybe the poster of the shapes had his account deleted because he was posting other people's work as his own? Without knowing more about this I don't think you can have a definite opinion. One thing that seems telling to me though is that the OP had his account banned and wants to use a relative's name to create a new account and upload the same images that got him banned.

Actually, the 'shapes' in question could really be shapes instead of brushes. Photoshop has a type of vector object which it calls 'shapes' and users can create their own. It doesn't really matter though, I guess, whether the OP used shapes or brushes (I think if it were filters in question, that would make a difference).

I would say to the OP that you would be crazy to try to use those shapes anywhere at any site for anything. And try to be reasonable with SS and maybe they will reinstate you someday.

Logged

rinderart

« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2012, 16:14 »

0

"I wanted to ask that now can I use those images on any other stock website to sell or can I create another account on ShutterStock with some different or my brother's identity to re-use them?"

This is what made a red flag for me.

Logged

m@m

« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2012, 16:32 »

0

Seems to be more than one red flag popping up in the OP post...

Autumnlover, can you show us some of these shapes in question, so that folks her can actually see what you're talking about?

Logged

CD123

« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2012, 16:33 »

0

The legal situation should be quite clear and obvious, if the issue is not totally missed by over opinionated member(s) with vivid imaginations in this forum.

The use of the shapes are not only prohibited by SS, but, if you are not able to supply proof that you had the legal right to use them, they will not be acceptable to any law abiding website.

If there is any way in which you can obtain a copy of the original page with the disclaimer giving you the right to use it, it might help (try the website owners, there might be a remote chance they might be prepared to assist you and get the data from old backups). If this is not possible, I am afraid you will not be able to sell those images any more.

velocicarpo

The legal situation should be quite clear and obvious, if the issue is not totally missed by over opinionated member(s) with vivid imaginations in this forum.

So how? I posted the link to the shutterstock TOS and the important section already 2 times. Look for yourself. They do not prohibit the use of third party software or elements as long as you have the right to.I do not use any third party stuff either, but I do not bother if someone does so as long as he ahs the right to.

We license Software and sometimes content like textures, filters and use them to create our artwork. Stockers use public domain images (check istock....soooo many scanned images of old drawings), procedural shaders of various software packages, premade PS actions. There are thousand of NASA visual earth images on sale and incorporated, not to talk about 3D models from Turbosquid or DAZ.

And all this within the green light of the various license agreements. How do you come to such a fast and subjective judgement?

Just to make it clear: personally, I do not use any of them. But I think what is right is right and I have a true problem with the subjective and "not thought through" legal viewpoint of some people here.

Logged

CD123

« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2012, 18:07 »

0

Was referring to some members here who makes their own assumptions about the poster's intent on violating people's rights. That was insulting to say the least.

In as far as the legal aspect. No, I am not saying one may never use it. I am referring to the poster's situation. He stated that the shape's creator withdrew the right of use (or is actually denying giving it in the first place). If that is the case, the only recourse he has is to be able to prove that the right was legally obtained in the past. If he can not contradict the creator's claim that the use is illegal, he has no case and will not be able to use the shapes.

There are many brushes and various other components which are totally legal to use and can even be bought to assist in the creation of sellable art. No one is disputing that.

velocicarpo

Was referring to some members here who makes their own assumptions about the poster's intent on violating people's rights. That was insulting to say the least.

In as far as the legal aspect. No, I am not saying one may never use it. I am referring to the poster's situation. He stated that the shape's creator withdrew the right of use (or is actually denying giving it in the first place). If that is the case, the only recourse he has is to be able to prove that the right was legally obtained in the past. If he can not contradict the creator's claim that the use is illegal, he has no case and will not be able to use the shapes.

There are many brushes and various other components which are totally legal to use and can even be bought to assist in the creation of sellable art. No one is disputing that.

The question now is, if the OP knew that the creator withdrew the right to use the elements....

Logged

CD123

« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2012, 18:41 »

0

I would rather agree with the opinion that the approval could not have been withdrawn for images on which it was already used (you can not withdraw copyright given retrospectively). The creator could perhaps try and prevent future use only.

It seems however if the creator is saying that permission was never given to use it. If that is the case, the onus is on the person who used it to prove that he/she did have the right.

This is actually a good lesson to all who make use of any elements where usage is indicated as "commercial use is authorized". Take a screen capture of that "license", you might need it later and make sure that the website you obtain it from is reputable and are not passing of other peoples work as their own (not an easy task these days though) .

Logged

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2012, 02:09 »

0

Until we get any kind of real information about what has happened this is all just speculation. Who knows what the OP is talking about here?We would have to have links to the images and to the source of the shapes at least.

fujiko

I would rather agree with the opinion that the approval could not have been withdrawn for images on which it was already used (you can not withdraw copyright given retrospectively). The creator could perhaps try and prevent future use only.

If a license is non perpetual, once the license is terminated the licensee must stop use and distribution (depending on license terms). Past use was right but future use includes continuing sales on an agency, so distribution through agency must be terminated also.

One thing that baffles me all the time is that when someone says that commercial use is permitted then everything is allowed. It's not true.A Commercial use license may be very different from being able to upload to agencies, grant rights to others, collect royalties, transfer rights, claim ownership... Commercial use allowed doesn't mean that the buyer owns your soul and can do whatever he pleases with the image.

Remember that in this business it is very important to differentiate between being able to do commercial use of the image and being able to transfer the rights of the image.

All of this is the reason why in my illustration i only use grunge textures, shapes, world map etc... that i've made by myself. It takes time but it prevents from this kind of trouble.When I sometime use some shapes I didn't create myself, these are only the basic shapes, brushes or else that you can find by default in Adobe software (not any external plugin)In the end, it's always a satisfaction to have your own sources noone else but you has created...

Logged

CD123

If a license is non perpetual, once the license is terminated the licensee must stop use and distribution (depending on license terms). Past use was right but future use includes continuing sales on an agency, so distribution through agency must be terminated also.

Never seen the use of any element being licensed like that. It will defeat the end of the license in respect of artistic use.To use or not to use externally created elements and ad-ons is a question of personal choice. Just make sure you are covered well when you do, else, like with this poster, you may be placed in a very compromised position.

helix7

All of this is the reason why in my illustration i only use grunge textures, shapes, world map etc... that i've made by myself. It takes time but it prevents from this kind of trouble...

Exactly. This topic comes up more and more often, and no one ever learns. There's a discussion going on at the SS forums about public domain stuff and it's use being a "gray area" there. My opinion is that using anything you didn't make is risky. While some of this stuff is acceptable now, we've seen that it doesn't always remain acceptable forever. I wouldn't take the chance.

m@m

...He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.

Do we know that the stuff was, in fact, free for commercial use? All I've seen in this thread is the OP's assertion that this was the case.

Seems odd that the artist would release his work as such and then get all upset that people used it commercially.

My point exactly!...the OP comes to this forum without a clear case or links to samples of what he/she is talking about, but like always a bunch of folks here jump to their own conclusions and create their own scenarios without the real facts... ...get a life guys!!!

Many of these shapes and brushes come from DeviantArt. It's obvious that many of the "artists" that give these shapes for free even for commercial use has stolen them somewhere else and made a collection of them. I just saw many Photoshop brushes sets made of images of Lady Gaga. "Free for commercial use" really doesn't necessarily mean that it's free for commercial use.

...He used some stuff to create his images which was declared as "free for comemrcial use". This is ok according to the TOS of shutterstock as well as the law.

Do we know that the stuff was, in fact, free for commercial use? All I've seen in this thread is the OP's assertion that this was the case.

Seems odd that the artist would release his work as such and then get all upset that people used it commercially.

This did happen with one of those Illustrator Brush people out there, although it was quite a long time ago when I heard about it and the creator name escapes me. He had all kinds of brush goodies out there, found out people were using them for vector stock, got PO'd and then said "No more."

My take on it was that the artist originally released as "free to use" and perhaps his intent was to make them usable as "accents" in illustrations. But it's possible and very probable that some of the stock vector people almost wholly based their vectors on them. If I found that, I'd be PO'd too. As I recall the guy had been on the web a long time. It was also a time when artists did not really pay attention to licensing language. And it was likely even before someone thought up the Creative Commons license. After I heard about the situation, I went back to the site and there was a whole page of legalese.

My own opinion here is that if the use was becoming problematic for the owner of the brushes, just take the brushes off the site. At least it would make acquisition harder. But if you have Google ads running and are in effect begging for clicks, it's a traffic draw. Even if a license is attached, you can't guarantee that the downloader will thoroughly read, understand, and abide by that language.

In order to prove yourself legal in use you would need to produce the exact language of the terms at the time of acquisition. And if it was a long time ago, that language if it could be produced would be open to wide interpretation.

@JM Yes even if some of these artists wirite a license or disclaimer, they in many cases do not know what's legal or not, or proper or not.

To the OP - if you really want help you need to post examples. I just gave an example of what happened with one situation. And regarding this statement of yours

Quote

If I can upload those pictures on another website then which websites are best and paying better?